Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that penal charges recovered for delayed service performance do not constitute a taxable service. The tribunal determined that contractual penalty clauses representing conditions of contract, rather than specific considerations, are not subject to service tax. The disputed amounts represent contractual penalties aimed at deterring service delays, not a distinct taxable service. Relying on judicial precedents and departmental circulars, the tribunal distinguished between contract conditions and considerations. Consequently, the retention amount does not transform into a taxable service. The appeal was allowed, with no service tax levied under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, and consequential interest and penalties were also set aside.
CESTAT held that penal charges recovered for delayed service performance do not constitute a taxable service. The tribunal determined that contractual penalty clauses representing conditions of contract, rather than specific considerations, are not subject to service tax. The disputed amounts represent contractual penalties aimed at deterring service delays, not a distinct taxable service. Relying on judicial precedents and departmental circulars, the tribunal distinguished between contract conditions and considerations. Consequently, the retention amount does not transform into a taxable service. The appeal was allowed, with no service tax levied under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, and consequential interest and penalties were also set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.